The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBSNC-SHH-RSA Shishmaref School 2012-EEENERGY A AUDITS OF AL Com LASKA Rich mprehensi Shishma Proj Ber R hard S. Arm Mechanical/E ve, Invest ref Schoo ect # BSN Prep ring Straits April Prime Richard S. Ar 2321 Merrill Anchorag A Energy Au P.O. B Anchorag mstrong, P Electrical Engi tment Gra of ol, Shishm NC-SHH-R ared for: s School 12, 2012 Contractor: rmstrong, PE, l Field Drive, ge, AK 99501 Auditor: udits of Alask Box 220215 ge, AK 98522 PE, LLC ineer ade Energ maref, Alas RSA-01 District , LLC C-6 1 ka 2 P gy Audit ska Page 1 of 48 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 2 of 48 TABLE OF CONTENTS Audit performed & report written by: __________________________ 4/12/12 James Fowler, PE, CEA date Energy Audits of Alaska CEA #1705 Reviewed by: __________________________ Richard Armstrong, PE, CEM CEA #178, CEM #13557 1. Executive Summary 4 2. Audit and Analysis Background 11 3. Acknowledgements 13 4. Building Description & Function 14 5. Historic Energy Consumption 15 6. Interactive Effects of Projects 16 7. Loan Program 16 Appendix A: Photos 18 Appendix B: AkWarm-C Report 24 Appendix C: Equipment Schedules 28 Appendix D: Building Plan 32 Appendix E: Lighting Plan 34 Appendix F: Mechanical Schematic 35 Appendix G: Additional, Building-Specific EEM detail 36 Appendix H: Specifications supporting EEM’s 39 Appendix I: Monthly Benchmark Data 47 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 3 of 48 REPORT DISCLAIMERS This audit was performed using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds, managed by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). The information contained in this report, including any attachments, is intended solely for use by the building owner and the AHFC. This report contains recommendations that, in the opinion of the auditor, will cause the owner to realize energy savings over time. All recommendations must be designed by a registered engineer, licensed in the State of Alaska, in the appropriate discipline. Lighting recommendations should all be first reviewed by running a lighting analysis to assure that the recommended lighting upgrades will comply with State of Alaska Statute as well as IES recommendations. Payback periods may well vary from those forecast due to the uncertainty of the final installed design, configuration, equipment selected, and installation costs of recommended Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), or the operating schedules and maintenance provided by the owner. Furthermore, EEMs are typically interactive, so implementation of one EEM may impact the cost savings from another EEM. Neither the auditor, Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC, AHFC, or others involved in preparation of this report will accept liability for financial loss due to EEMs that fail to meet the forecasted payback periods. This audit meets the criteria of an Investment Grade Audit (IGA) per the Association of Energy Engineers definition, and is valid for one year. The life of the IGA may be extended on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the AHFC. IGSs are the property of the State, and may be incorporated into AkWarm- C, the Alaska Energy Data Inventory (ARIS), or other state and/or public information system. AkWarm-C is a building energy modeling software developed under contract with AHFC. . ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 4 of 48 1. Executive Summary Guidance to the reader: The Executive Summary is designed to contain all the information the building owner/operator should need to determine how the subject building’s energy efficiency compares with other similar use buildings, what energy improvements should be implemented, their estimated savings and payback. Sections 2 through 7 and the Appendices are back-up, and provide much more detailed information, should the owner desire to investigate further. This Comprehensive Energy Audit is performed in connection with AHFC’s Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loans (REAL) program. Subject Building: Shishmaref School 1 Seaview Lane Shishmaref, AK 99772 Building Owner: Bering Straits School District P.O. Box 225 Unalakleet, AK 99684 Building contacts: John Kakeok, Plant Manager 907-649-3022 Steve Sammons, Principal 907-649-3021 ssammons@shh.bssd.org The site visit to subject building occurred on February 2, 2012, a sunny day with an ambient temperature of -38F. Shishmaref is a remote village on the Bering Sea, with approximately 500 residents. As is typical, the school is the largest building in the village; it was constructed in stages over a 30 year period. The original school buildings consisted of the north, elementary wing and the south, high school wing. As original plans were not available, it is not clear exactly what year these were built, but it is estimated to be around 1982. In 2003, five portable buildings were re-located and attached to the elementary and high schools. The entire building was integrated, re-sided and re-roofed and the electrical and mechanical systems were upgraded and integrated as well. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 5 of 48 There are approximately 180 students in K-12 and 40 staff. The school has a gymnasium used year round, a wood shop and home sciences room, both used during the school year, a moderately equipped commercial kitchen with a walk-in refrigerator and freezer which is used during the school year and for special events during the summer months. Overall the interior and exterior of this building is well maintained, and in very good condition. Energy Consumption and benchmark data This building utilizes fuel oil for heating and electricity generated by the adjacent village power plant. Fuel oil and electrical benchmark data was provided by Nortech Engineering, and contains two years of monthly consumption figures. Summarized values for electrical and fuel oil consumption are shown in Table 1 below: Table 1 2009 2010 Consumption Cost Consumption Cost Electricity ‐ kWh 235,589 $ 125,808 240,572 $ 118,388 Fuel Oil ‐ gallons 22,702 $ 93,916 20,301 $ 73,694 Totals $ 219,724 $ 192,082 A benchmark measure of energy use relative to other similar function buildings is the Energy Use Index (EUI), which takes the total annual energy used by the facility divided by the square footage area of the building, for a value expressed in terms of kBTU/SF. This number can then be compared to other buildings to see if it is average, higher or lower than similar buildings in the area. Likewise, the Energy Cost Index (ECI) is the cost of all energy used by the building expressed in $/SF of building area. The comparative values for the subject building are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2 Subject Building Gambell School Diomede School Average US School (continental US) Energy Use Index (EUI) ‐ kBTU/SF 137 133 134 85‐98 Energy Cost Index (ECI) ‐ $/SF $7.75 $6.22 $9.30 ‐ ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 6 of 48 As observed in Table 2, the subject building’s EUI is slightly higher, but for the most part, in line with two very comparable buildings, the Schools in Gambell and Diomede. It is substantially higher than schools in the lower 48 states, which is to expected, given the regional climate differences. A deeper analysis (see Chart 1 below) shows that this building falls between these two comparable schools regarding consumption of fuel oil, and electricity. Chart 1 Various Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) have been analyzed for this building to determine if they would provide energy savings with reasonably good payback periods. EEMs are recommended for reasons including: 1.) they have a reasonably good payback period 2.) for code compliance 3.) end of life (EOL) replacement 4.) reasons pertaining to efficient building management strategy, operations, maintenance and/or safety All the EEMs considered for this facility are detailed in the attached AkWarm-C Energy Audit Report in Appendix B and in Appendix G. Each EEM includes payback times, estimated installation costs and estimated energy savings. Not all EEM’s that were considered are recommended. The summary EEM’s that follow are a distillation of all of the EEM’s 0 20406080100120 Subject Building Gambell Diomede School Fuel Oil EUI Electrical EUI ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 7 of 48 recommended for this building. They are considered from three perspectives: overall efficiency of building management, reduction in energy consumption and return on investment (ROI). Efficient building management dictates, as an example: that all lights be upgraded, that lamp inventory variations be minimized and that all appropriate rooms have similar occupancy controls and setback thermostats - despite the fact that a single or several rooms may have an unjustifiably long payback on their individual lighting or controls upgrade. Some of the summary EEM’s below contain individual EEM’s that are grouped by type (i.e. all relevant lighting upgrades are summed and listed as a single upgrade, all thermostat setback retrofits are grouped together and listed as a single upgrade, etc.) and are prioritized with the highest ROI (shortest payback) listed first. Table 3 at the end of this section summarizes these EEM’s. A.) ROOM TEMPERATURE SETBACK THERMOSTATS It is assumed that the electronic, 24 volt HVAC control system has the capability to implement night time temperature setbacks by zone within this building, and that either this has not been done, or it is in need of adjustment. Most rooms have individual temperature sensors that are not adjustable. The rooms with UH’s and CUH’s have low voltage thermostats recommended to be replaced with programmable versions @ $200 ea, that can accommodate unoccupied 55F setback temperatures. This EEM is detailed in Appendix B-2 & 3-5. Combined Setback Thermostat EEM’s: Estimated cost $ 4,900 Annual Savings $ 12,631 Payback 5 months B.) ADD VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES (VFD’S): In certain mechanical systems, a unique set of physical principles, called Affinity Laws, allow a motor to operate, for example, at 70% of its rated load while using only 34% of its rated full load consumption. VFD’s allow motors to utilize the Affinity Laws. It is recommended to add VFD’s to the fan motors used in H&V-1 and H&V-2. See Appendix G-7 and Appendix B-7 for complete detail. VFD EEM: Estimated cost $ 7,960 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 8 of 48 Annual Savings $ 5,913 Payback 1.4 years C.) LIGHTING AND LIGHTING CONTROLS For the most part, the lighting fixtures in this building have been upgraded to T8 lamps with electronic ballasts. Some rooms have occupancy sensors, although several are not functioning. Building- wide, there is still more savings to be obtained. It is recommended to add occupancy sensors to all rooms and to the gymnasium, and at the next building re-lamp, replace all 48” T8-32 watt lamps with T8-28 watt energy saver lamps and the T8-32 watt U-tube lamps in the gymnasium with 30 watt U-tube energy saver lamps. Upgrading the exterior lighting from high pressure sodium (HPS) to LED lighting is also recommended. The completion of a full lighting upgrade for this building is summarized below and detailed in Appendix B items 1, 6 and 8-14. For additional information on occupancy sensors and lighting systems, see Appendix H. Combined Lighting & Lighting Control EEM’s: Estimated cost $ 22,279 Annual Savings $ 13,478 Payback 1.7 years D.) MOTORS There are 2 motors in this building of 5 HP or larger. Generally, paybacks justify that these motors, if operating for 1500 hours per year or more at continuous speed, should be replaced at EOL with premium efficiency motors. Paybacks will justify that motors of this size, operating for 5000 hours per year or longer, be replaced with premium efficiency motors immediately. See table 4 in Appendix G-2 for complete, large-motor listing and recommended premium upgrades. In this building, two air handler (H&V-1 and H&V-2) motors should be replaced at their EOL with premium efficiency versions. Nameplates for these motors were not accessible, so efficiency ratings were estimated based on typical motors of this age. Actual motor efficiency ratings should be verified prior to implementing this EEM. Motors recommended to be replaced at EOL: ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 9 of 48 Estimated cost $ 350 Annual Savings $ 146 Payback 2.4 years E.) PERSONAL COMPUTERS There are 39 PC’s in this building and it is recommended to replace these PC’s with laptops at their EOL A laptop will use approximately 50% less energy than a desktop PC; their incremental cost is $150 each. See Appendix B-15. PC replacement at EOL, EEM: Estimated cost $ 5,850 Annual Savings $ 1,676 Payback 3.5 years F.) PLUMBING FIXTURES Plans indicate that the urinals in this building use .5 gallons per flush (gpf), which is a low-flow fixture. Urinals and faucets should have proximity sensing on/off controls. Manually flushed toilets should be retrofitted with dual flush valves. This audit does not include water usage and AkWarm-C does not allow for the modeling of this, see Appendix G-1 for additional detail. G.) WASTE HEAT RECOVERY Perform an engineering study to determine quantity, quality and cost to recover and pipe generator plant waste heat to the subject building. Very rough estimates of potential annual savings, based on similar village (Atqasuk) and 2010 fuel prices is $43,000-$54,000/year. Estimated cost of engineering study and development of scope of work is $15,000. Estimated cost to implement this system is unknown. See Appendix G-3 for additional detail. Waste Heat Recovery EEM: Estimated cost for engineering study $15,000 Estimated cost to implement system unknown Annual Savings $43,000-$54,000 Payback less than 10 years ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 10 of 48 Table 3 summarizes the estimated cost totals and estimated annual savings totals of the seven (A. through G) summary EEM’s listed above. Table 3 Combined total of all EEM’s recommended for this building (summarized by A through G above and detailed in Appendices B & G): Estimated total cost $41,339 Annual Savings $33,808 Simple payback 1.2 years Does not include design or construction management costs In addition to EEMs, various Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) are recommended since they are policies or procedures that are followed by management and employees that require no capital outlay. Examples of recommended ECMs for this facility include: 1. Turning lights off when leaving a room that is not controlled by an occupancy sensor. 2. All man-doors, roll-up doors and windows should be properly maintained and adjusted to close and function properly. 3. Turn off computers, printers, faxes, etc. when leaving the office. 4. Re-commission HVAC settings annually, to accommodate any changes in occupancy and/or building usage and to confirm that all components are performing as specified. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 11 of 48 2. Audit and Analysis Background Program Description: This audit included services to identify, develop, and evaluate energy efficiency measures for the subject building. The scope of this project included evaluating from an energy perspective, the building shell, lighting, other electrical systems, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. EEM’s were considered, based on their payback period, life cycle replacement or for reasons pertaining to maintenance, operations and/or safety. a. Audit Description and Methodology: Preliminary audit information was gathered in preparation for the site survey, including benchmark utility consumption data, floor and lighting plans, and equipment schedules, where available. A site visit is then performed to inventory and evaluate the actual building condition, including: i. Building envelope (walls, doors, windows, etc) ii. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning iii. Lighting systems and controls iv. Building specific equipment v. Plumbing Systems b. Benchmark Utility Data Validation: Benchmark utility data provided through AHFC’s initial phase of their REAL program is validated, confirming that electrical and gas meter numbers on the subject building match the meters from which the energy consumption and cost data were collected. If the data is inaccurate new benchmark data is obtained. In the event that there are inconsistencies or gaps in the data, the existing data is evaluated and missing data points are interpolated. c. Method of Analysis: The information gathered prior to the site visit and during the site visit is entered into AkWarm-C, an energy modeling software program developed specifically for Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to identify forecasted energy consumption. The forecasts can then be compared to actual energy consumption. AkWarm-C also has some pre-programmed EEM retrofit options that can be analyzed with projected energy savings based on occupancy schedules, utility rates, building construction type, building function, existing conditions, and climatic data uploaded to the program based on the zip code of the building. When new equipment is proposed, energy consumption is calculated based on manufacturer’s cataloged information. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 12 of 48 Energy cost savings are calculated based on the historical energy costs for the building. Installation costs include the labor and equipment required to implement an EEM retrofit, but design and construction management costs are excluded. Cost estimates are +/- 30% for this level of audit, and are derived from one or more of the following: Means Cost Data, industry publications, experience of the auditor, local contractors and/or equipment suppliers. Mechanical Solutions, Inc, Yaskawa America Drives, and J.P. Sheldon, all in Anchorage, were consulted for some of the VFD controls, dehumidification, boiler, air handling retrofit and/or replacement costs. Maintenance savings are calculated, where applicable, and are added to the energy savings for each EEM. The costs and savings are considered and a simple payback period and ROI is calculated. The simple payback period is based on the number of years that it takes for the savings to pay back the net installation cost (Net Installation costs divided by Net Savings.) In cases where the EEM recommends replacement at EOL, the incremental cost difference between the standard equipment in place, and the higher efficiency equipment being recommended is used as the cost basis for payback calculation. The SIR found in the AkWarm-C report is the Savings to Investment Ratio, defined as the lifetime energy savings (annual savings times lifetime in years) divided by the initial installed cost. d. Limitations of the Study: All results are dependent on the quality of input data provided, and may only act as an approximation. As a primary example, usage data for building components and equipment provided by onsite personnel has a very large impact on calculated annual savings. In some instances, several methods may achieve the identified savings. This report is not intended as a final design document. A design professional, licensed to practice in Alaska and in the appropriate discipline, who is following the recommendations, shall accept full responsibility and liability for the results. Budgetary estimates for installed cost of EEM’s are +/- 30%; estimates for engineering and design of these projects in not included in the cost estimate for each EEM recommendation, but these costs can be approximated at 15% of the cost of the work. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 13 of 48 3. Acknowledgements: We wish to acknowledge the help of numerous individuals who have contributed information that was used to prepare this report, including: a. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (Grantor): AHFC provided the grant funds, contracting agreements, guidelines, and technical direction for providing the audits. AHFC reviewed and approved the final short list of buildings to be audited based on the recommendation of the Technical Service Provider (TSP). b. The Bering Straits School District (Owner): The BSSD provided building sizing information, two years fuel oil usage data, building schedules and functions, as well as building age. c. Nortech Engineering (Benchmark TSP): Nortech Engineering Company compiled the electrical data received from the Bering Straits Borough and entered that data into the statewide building database, called the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS). d. Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC (Audit TSP): This is the TSP who was awarded the projects in the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Bering Straits area, and the Nana area. The firm gathered all relevant benchmark information provided to them by Nortech Engineering, cataloged which buildings would have the greatest potential payback, and with the building owner, prioritized buildings to be audited based on numerous factors, including the Energy Use Index (EUI), the Energy Cost Index (ECI), the age of the building, the size of the building, the location of the building, the function of the building, and the availability of plans for the building. They also trained and assigned their selected sub-contractors to the selected buildings, and performed quality control reviews of the resulting audits. They prepared a listing of potential EEMs that each auditor must consider, as well as the potential EEMs that the individual auditor may notice in the course of his audit. Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC also performed some of the audits to assure current knowledge of existing conditions. e. Energy Audits of Alaska (energy auditor): This firm has been selected to provide audits under this contract. The firm has two mechanical engineers, certified as energy auditors and/or professional engineers and has also received additional training from Richard S. Armstrong, PE, LLC to acquire further specific information regarding audit requirements and potential EEM applications. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 14 of 48 4. Building Description and Function: This building has 25,220 square feet on its first floor, consisting of classrooms, offices, a gymnasium, a mechanical room, corridors and common spaces. The small mezzanine has 1350 square feet, and consists of a fan room and storage. In total, the building has 26,570 square feet. Either the south, high school wing or the north, elementary wing was built first, followed by the other – both at unknown dates, but approximately 1982 or 1983. In 2003 five portable buildings were moved and joined to the main building. All the buildings are constructed on pilings. The original two buildings are presumed (from 2003 plans with no dimensions) to have 30” TJI floor joists filled with batt, 2” x 8” wood stud walls filled with batt and a nominal R-60 rigid foam roof. The floor and wall insulation values, as calculated by AkWarm-C are R-103 and R-21. The former portable buildings, appear to have 18” floor joists filled with batt, the same 2” x 8” wood stud walls and R-60 roof. Their floor insulation value, as computed by AkWarm-C is R-55. Exterior walls are finished with plywood sheathing and prefinished metal siding. Interior walls are finished with gypsum. Building details are as follows: a. Heating System: Heat is supplied to the school by (3) Burnham 959 MBH, 87% efficient, oil fired, cast iron sectional boilers. The boilers provide heat to rooms through three primary circulation pumps supplying finned tube baseboard heaters, reheat coils, (3) air handler coils (called H&V units in plans), (2) unit heaters (UH) and (8) cabinet unit heaters (CUH). The UH’s are running wild, (i.e. glycol flow is controlled only by the circulation pump at the boiler, with no secondary control at the UH) and are fan-controlled by local, low voltage zone thermostats. The CUH’s have 3- way valve and fan control, also by local low voltage thermostats. All other rooms have non-adjustable sensor thermostats which presumably control local zone and finned tube radiator valves. The HVAC has an electronic, timer based control system and uses pneumatic actuators. All glycol circulation pumps utilize constant speed motors. b. Ventilation: Ventilation, return air and make up air are provided by a series of air handlers (called “H&V” in this building). The three H&V units utilize constant speed fan motors. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 15 of 48 c. Plumbing Fixtures: The building contains (17) toilets, (5) urinals, (20) lavatory sinks and (12) showers. (6) of the lavatory faucets are in two semi-circular sinks utilizing timer valves. All other fixtures are operated manually. The fixtures consume 1.6 gpf (toilets) and .5 gpf (urinals) and 2.0 gpm (shower heads). See Appendix G-1 for EEM recommendations. d. Domestic Hot Water: Hot water is provided to showers, lavatories and the kitchen by (3) indirect, 120 gallon hot water generators located in the fan room. Hot water for the kitchen dishwasher is supplemented by a 4.1 KW wash booster and 9 KW rinse booster which are integral to the industrial dishwasher. e. Head Bolt Heaters: There are no head bolt heaters attached to this building. Transportation to and from school in winter appears to be on foot or by ATV’s and snow machines. f. Interior Lighting: This building utilizes T8 lamps with electronic ballasts and quad-tube fluorescent plug in lamps in recessed can fixtures. A small number of rooms have occupancy sensors. Completion of a full lighting upgrade is recommended in item C.) above and in Appendix B. g. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting consists of 100 watt soffit and 150 watt High Pressure Sodium (HPS) wall packs, as well as (2) 400 watt HPS wall packs. All appear and are presumed to be controlled by photo sensors. h. Building Shell: Other than several windows with warpage of interior structure, the building shell is in very good condition. i. Wood shop & Home Sciences: The schools wood shop is in a separate building with its own electric meter and fuel tank; access was not provided. The small home sciences room contains an electric range/oven, refrigerator and microwave. j. Kitchen: The school kitchen is moderately equipped and used regularly. None of the equipment is old enough or used frequently enough to justify replacement with higher ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 16 of 48 efficiency models prior to burn out. All equipment should be replaced at EOL with high efficiency models. 5. Historic Energy Consumption: Energy consumption is modeled within the AkWarm-C program. The program typically analyzes twelve months of data. Two year’s worth of fuel oil and electricity consumption were averaged, then input into AKWarm-C. This monthly data is found in Appendix I. Energy consumption was analyzed using two factors: the Energy Cost Index (ECI) and the Energy Use Index (EUI). The ECI takes the annual costs of natural gas and electrical energy over the surveyed period of time (two years) divided by the square footage of the building. The ECI for this building is $7.75/SF, the ECI’s for two similar buildings, the Schools in Gambell and Diomede, are $6.62/SF, and $9.30/SF, respectively. The energy use index (EUI) is the total annual average electrical and natural gas energy consumption expressed in thousands of BTUs/SF. The average of the 2009 and 2010 EUI for this building is 137 kBTU/SF; the average 2009/2010 EUI for the Gambell School is 133 kBTU/SF and 134 kBTU/SF for the Diomede School. The average for schools across the US varies from 85 to 98 kBTU/SF as logged by the US Energy Information Administration. This source data can be viewed at: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/efficiency/cbecstrends/cbi_pdf/cbecs_trends_6b.pdf 6. Interactive Effects of Projects: The AkWarm-C program calculates savings assuming that all recommended EEM that are modeled, are implemented in the order shown in Appendix B. Some of the EEM’s listed in Appendix B noted as “see Appendix G” are not modeled in AkWarm-C model due to limitations in AkWarm-C’s capability. Therefore the savings calculated by AkWarm-C do not take them into consideration, and visa versa. Furthermore, if the EEM’s calculated by AkWarm-C are implemented out of order, savings for the remaining EEMs will be affected, in some cases positively, and in others, negatively. As a result of these anomalies, the overall building savings on the first page of Appendix B may be over or understated. In general, all projects were evaluated sequentially so that energy savings associated with one EEM would not be attributed to another EEM as well. Best efforts are made to model the recommended projects sequentially, so as to best account for the interactive effects between the EEMs and not “double count” savings. Interior lighting, plug loads, facility equipment, and occupants generate heat within the building. When the building is in cooling mode, these contribute to the overall cooling demands of the building; therefore lighting efficiency ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 17 of 48 improvements will reduce cooling requirements on air conditioned buildings. Conversely, lighting efficiency improvements are anticipated to increase heating requirements slightly. Heating penalties are included in the lighting project analysis that is performed by AkWarm-C. 7. Loan Program: The Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF) is a State of Alaska program enacted by the Alaska Sustainable Energy Act (senate Bill 220, A.S. 18.56.855, “Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund). The AEERLF will provide loans for energy efficiency retrofits to public facilities via the Retrofit Energy Assessment for Loan System (REAL). As defined in 15 AAC 155.605, the program may finance energy efficiency improvements to buildings owned by: a. Regional educational attendance areas; b. Municipal governments, including political subdivisions of municipal governments; c. The University of Alaska; d. Political subdivisions of the State of Alaska, or e. The State of Alaska Native corporations, tribal entities, and subsidiaries of the federal government are not eligible for loans under this program. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 18 of 48 Appendix A Photos School gymnasium also used as cafeteria and multi-purpose room. De-stratification fans (4) in gymnasium (not operating during audit). The temperature difference between the thermostats and ceiling was measured to be less than 2F. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 19 of 48 Several of the occupancy sensors in the building were non-operative; they should be replaced or repaired. Mezzanine fan room, very clean and organized ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 20 of 48 Several portable classrooms are in use, all are on their own electrical meters and oil tanks. Typical exterior. Typical portable classroom interior. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 21 of 48 Arctic entry in portable classroom; door weather stripping was in good condition, freezing is presumed to be a result of repeated door openings in -38F weather and human-generated inside humidity. Each portable has an individual, oil fired room heater with integral thermostat. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 22 of 48 Boilers located in detached mechanical room on south side of the main building ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 23 of 48 Aerial View of Shishmaref Airport School (subject building) NORTH Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Shishmaref School Page 24 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA ENERGY AUDIT REPORT – PROJECT SUMMARY – Created 3/27/2012 4:51 PM General Project Information PROJECT INFORMATION AUDITOR INFORMATION Building: Shishmaref School Auditor Company: Energy Audits of Alaska Address: 1 Seaview Lane Auditor Name: James Fowler City: Shishmaref Auditor Address: 5935 Pioneer Park Pl Langley, WA 98260 Langley, WA 98260 Client Name: John Kokeok, Steve Sammons Client Address: 1 Seaview Lane Shishmaref, AK 99772 Auditor Phone: (206) 954-3614 Auditor FAX: Client Phone: (907) 649-3022 Auditor Comment: Client FAX: Design Data Building Area: 26,570 square feet Design Heating Load: Design Loss at Space: 706,619 Btu/hour with Distribution Losses: 785,133 Btu/hour Plant Input Rating assuming 82.0% Plant Efficiency and 25% Safety Margin: 1,196,849 Btu/hour Note: Additional Capacity should be added for DHW load, if served. Typical Occupancy: 120 people Design Indoor Temperature: 57.2 deg F (building average) Actual City: Shishmaref Design Outdoor Temperature: -35.6 deg F Weather/Fuel City: Shishmaref Heating Degree Days: 15,790 deg F-days Utility Information Electric Utility: AVEC-Shishmaref - Commercial - Lg Natural Gas Provider: None Average Annual Cost/kWh: $0.519/kWh Average Annual Cost/ccf: $0.000/ccf Annual Energy Cost Estimate Description Space Heating Space Cooling Water Heating Lighting Refrigerat ion Other Electrical Clothes Drying Ventilation Fans Service Fees Total Cost Existing Building $85,447 $0 $37,934 $34,259 $207 $40,820 $0 $11,138 $60 $209,866 With Proposed Retrofits $74,279 $0 $38,442 $19,367 $208 $38,981 $0 $4,720 $60 $176,058 SAVINGS $11,168 $0 -$509 $14,893 $0 $1,839 $0 $6,418 $0 $33,808 Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Shishmaref School Page 25 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Shishmaref School Page 26 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 1 Lighting: Incandescent - hood Replace INCAND with 3 FLUOR CFL, A Lamp 15W $105 $15 42.66 0.1 2 Setback Thermostat: Classrooms, corridors, offices Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for the Classrooms, corridors, offices space. $6,213 $2,000 42.15 0.3 3 Setback Thermostat: Mechanical and fan rooms Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for the Mechanical and fan rooms space. $1,020 $400 34.61 0.4 4 Setback Thermostat: Classrooms & offices also used in summer Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for the Classrooms & offices used in summer space. $3,647 $1,500 32.99 0.4 5 Setback Thermostat: Gymnasium and entry lobby Implement a Heating Temperature Unoccupied Setback to 55.0 deg F for the Gymnasium and entry lobby space. $1,873 $1,000 25.42 0.5 6 Lighting: Exterior HPS-100 soffit Replace with 12 LED 25W Module StdElectronic $2,560 $1,200 13.20 0.5 7 (see also Appe ndix G-4) Variable Frequency Drives (VFD’s) Add VFD's to H&V-1 and H&V-2 fan motors, savings predicted at 68%; costs estimated $7960 $5,755 $7,960 8.35 1.4 8 Lighting: Exterior HPS-400 wall packs Replace with 2 LED 115W Module StdElectronic $1,441 $1,600 5.57 1.1 9 Lighting: Incandescent bulbs - freezer Replace with 2 LED 10W Module StdElectronic $38 $50 4.61 1.3 10 Lighting: T8-4-U- Tube Gym lighting, add OS At next re-lamp, Replace 32W T8 lamps with 36 FLUOR (4) T8 F32T8 30W U-Tube Energy- Saver (2) Instant StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,355 $3,576 4.03 1.5 11 Lighting: T8-3lamp already have OS At next re-lamp, Replace 32W T8 lamps with 56 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic $232 $504 2.81 2.2 Appendix B – Detailed AkWarm-C Report Energy Audit – Energy Analysis and Cost Comparison AkWarm Commercial Audit Software Shishmaref School Page 27 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA PRIORITY LIST – RECOMMENDED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Rank Feature Recommendation Annual Energy Savings Installed Cost SIR Payback (Years) 12 Lighting: Exterior HPS-150 Wall Packs Replace with 10 LED 50W Module StdElectronic $2,722 $6,000 2.81 2.2 13 Lighting: T8-2lamp add OS At next re-lamp, Replace 32W T8 lamps with 85 FLUOR (2) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $1,214 $2,710 2.74 2.2 14 Lighting: T8-3lamp, add OS At next re-lamp, Replace 32W T8 lamps with 186 FLUOR (3) T8 4' F32T8 28W Energy-Saver Instant StdElectronic and Remove Manual Switching and Add new Occupancy Sensor $2,811 $6,624 2.59 2.4 15 Other Electrical: Personal Computers Replace with 39 Laptop $1,676 $5,850 1.77 3.5 The following EEM’s were calculated outside of AkWarm-C and may not consider the interactive affect of any other EEM’ above, unless specifically stated otherwise. They are not in order of priority or savings, relative to the EEM’s above. See Appe ndix G-1 Plumbing Fixtures: (17) W.C., (20) lavatories, (5) urinals, (12) showers Replace shower heads and lavatory fixtures with low flow versions; replace lavatory valves with proximity sensing on/off controls, retrofit toilets with dual-flush valves, replace urinals with ultra-low flow and proximity sensing controls See Appe ndix G-2 Motor replacements Replace 2 motors with premium efficiency motors at EOL; see Table 4 Appendix G-2 for details. $146 $350 46.9 2.4 See Appe ndix G-3 Village Generator Waste Heat Recovery Perform engineering study and implement waste heat recovery $43,000-$54,000 (not included in total below) $15,000 study, unknown cost to implement TOTAL $33,808 $41,339 8.12 1.2 AkWarmCalc Ver 2.1.4.2, Energy Lib 3/1/2012 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 28 of 48 Appendix C – Equipment Schedule ALL SCHEDULES COMPILED FROM PLANS OR ON‐SITE NAMEPLATE OBSERVATION WHERE ACCESSIBLE e = estimated AIR HANDLER SCHEDULE SYMBO L MFGR/MODEL FAN CFM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS H&V‐1 Pace A‐20 7,500 5/208/3 Serves High School; min OSA per plans 2200 CFM H&V‐2 Pace P‐30; 600 MBH 12,000 7.5/208/3 Serves multi‐purpose room; min OSA per plans 2000 CFM H&V‐3 Pace A‐16; 600 MBH 5,100 3/208/3 Serves elementary area; min OSA per plans 1200 CFM DE‐STRATIFICATION FAN SCHEDULE SYMBO L MOTOR MFGR/MODEL CFM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS CF‐1 Leading Edge HT‐56 ‐ 108W/120/1 Located in Gymnasium EXHAUST FAN SCHEDULE SYMBO L MOTOR MFGR/MODEL CFM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS EF‐1 Greenheck BSQ‐170‐7 2,100 .75/208/3 Toilet room exhaust, interconnected with H&V‐1 EF‐2 Greenheck Cube 160‐HP‐7 1,850 .75/208/3 Kitchen hood, interconnected with H&V‐2 EF‐3 Greenheck SQ‐120‐B 720 .5/208/3 Interconnected with H&V‐3 EF‐4 Greenheck SQ‐100‐B 600 .17/120/1 Dishwasher hood exhaust EF‐5 Greenheck SP‐225 600 285W/120/1 Bi‐Cultural room exhaust RF‐1 Greenheck BSQ‐200‐20 5,100 2/208/3 Interconnected with H&V‐1 RF‐3 Greenheck BSQ‐160 4,000 2/208/3 Interconnected with H&V‐3 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 29 of 48 PUMP SCHEDULE SYMBO L MFGR/MODEL GPM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS CP‐1 Grundfos UPS 50‐240 90 2/208/3 Main hydronics circ pump CP‐2 Grundfox UPS 15‐42F 3 .04/120/1 effluent line pump CP‐3 Grundfox UP 15‐18 SU 5 .04/120/1 DHW circulation pump SP‐1 Grainger 4RK74 15 .33/120/1 sump pump BOILER SCHEDULE SYMBO L MFGR/MODEL MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS B‐1 Burnham V‐907A .75/120/1 fuel pump .5/208/1 burner 959 MBH input, 834 MBH output, 87% efficient, oil fired, cast iron sectional boiler B‐2 Burnham V‐907A .75/120/1 fuel pump .5/208/1 burner 959 MBH input, 834 MBH output, 87% efficient, oil fired, cast iron sectional boiler B‐3 Burnham V‐907A .75/120/1 fuel pump .5/208/1 burner 959 MBH input, 834 MBH output, 87% efficient, oil fired, cast iron sectional boiler UNIT HEATER SCHEDULE SYMBO L MFGR/MODEL CFM MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS UH‐1 Sterling HS‐36, 26 MBH 550 15W/120/1 Storage areas and generator room UH‐2 Sterling HS‐18, 13 MBH 400 9W/120/1 storage areas CUH‐1 (4 units) Sterling F1‐1050‐08, 55 MBH 335 50W/120/1 Vestibules CUH‐2 (4 units) Sterling F1‐1050‐03, 23 MBH 860 .17/120/1 Gymnasium HOT WATER GENERATOR SCHEDULE SYMBO L MFGR/MODEL GALLONS ELEMENT SIZE ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 30 of 48 HWG‐1 Amtrol WHS‐120ZC‐DW 120 Indirect water generator HWG‐2 Amtrol WHS‐120ZC‐DW 120 Indirect water generator HWG‐3 Amtrol WHS‐120ZC‐DW 120 Indirect water generator PLUMBING FIXTURES SYMBO L FIXTURE GPF/GPM QUANTITY REMARKS W.C. 1.6 17 manually operated Urinal 0.5 5 manually operated Lavatory sink 0.5 2 manually operated Semi‐circular Lavatory sink 0.5 12 5‐60 second timer valve Lavatory sink 0.5 6 5‐60 second timer valve Showers 2.0 12 5‐60 second timer valve EQUIPMENT ‐ KITCHEN FIXTURE USAGE (HRS/DAY ) MOTOR DATA HP/VOLTS/PH REMARKS Jackson TempStar Dishwasher 3.5 .75/208/1 also used 2‐3 hrs/day for 4‐6 weeks during summer months 4.1 KW wash heater 9.0 KW Rinse heater Hatco C‐17 Hot water booster 3.5 1.73KW/208/3 Silverking SK‐12‐MAJ Milk cooler/dispenser continuou s 1.36A/120/1; 315 BTU/hr on 12 months/yr Hobart Industrial Mixer 1 .75/120/1 Univex SRM‐20 Mixer 0 ‐ not used Panasonic Commercial Microwave 1 1500W/120/1 Savory PD4 Toaster 1.5 11.1A/240/1 Atlas WIH‐DM‐5 Food warming table 3 4250W/208/1 also used 2‐3 hrs/day for 4‐6 weeks during summer months Garland 4‐burner stove/grill combi 4 8KW/240/3 Stove and grill used regularly, oven not used Gemini Exhaust hood WCBD‐FL200 126‐48 6 2100 CFM 200 CFM/ft; 10.5' long (see EF‐2 for electrical details) ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 31 of 48 US Range Model CE‐200 5 22KW/240/3 elements 1776W/240/3 (2) motors Lang PF‐H‐1 warming oven 5 1550 KW/240/1 ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 32 of 48 Appendix C – Lighting Schedule LIGHTING SCHEDULE FIXTURE MANUFACTURER CATALOG NUMBER MOUNTING LAMPS VOLTS REMARKS ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 33 of 48 Appendix D – Building Floor Plan North, Elementary wing ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 34 of 48 Appendix D – Building Floor Plan South, High School wing ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 35 of 48 . Appendix E – Lighting Plan ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 36 of 48 Appendix F – Mechanical Schematics ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 37 of 48 Appendix G Additional, Building-Specific EEM details THESE EEM’S MAY BE INTERACTIVE AND DO NOT TAKE EACH OTHER INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN SAVINGS ARE CALCULATED, SO THEY CANNOT BE ADDED CUMULATIVELY. FURTHERMORE, INDIVIDUAL EEM SAVINGS WILL BE REDUCED (OR INCREASED) DEPENDING ON WHICH EEM’S ARE SELECTED AND IN WHAT ORDER THEY ARE IMPLEMENTED. G-1: Plumbing fixtures: All urinals using more than 1.0 gallon per flush should be retrofitted or be replaced with ultra low flow models. The urinals in subject building are specified on plans to be .5 gpf, so are considered ultra-low flow models. Urinals and faucets should also have proximity sensing on/off controls. Manually flushed toilets should be retrofitted with dual flush valves (see below). This audit does not include water usage and AkWarm-C does not allow for the modeling of it, but a typical faucet retrofit will result in 30% water savings and will payback in less than 3 years. Ultra low flow urinals (1 pint to ½ gallon per flush) can save up to 66% of water used, and typically pay back within 3 years. Dual flush toilet valves will typically pay back within 1-3 years, depending on usage. These payback periods are reduced by 66% or more if the fixture is replaced at its EOL rather than while it’s still functioning. For an EOL replacement, the cost used is the incremental difference in cost between an ultra-low- flow fixture and a straight across replacement with the same fixture. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 38 of 48 G-2: Motor replacements: It is generally recommended that all motors, 5HP or larger, operating for 1500 hrs per year, or more, at continuous speed, be replaced at EOL with premium efficiency motors. Motors operating for 5000 hours per year, or more, can be replaced with premium efficiency motors prior to burn out, with a justifiable payback. Motors in this building, 5HP and larger, are listed below, along with recommendations for cost effective replacement at burn-out and for immediate replacement. There are two instances in this building of cost effective motor replacement at EOL with premium efficiency motors. There are no justifiable instances of replacement now. Table 4 – Motor Listing Motor use & location (5 HP or larger) HP/Volts /Ph Existing Efficiency Premium Efficiency Estimated annual usage (hrs) Annual Savings Burn‐out payback (yrs)/cost Replacemen t payback (yrs)/cost REPLACE AT EOL WITH PREMIUM EFFICIENCY MOTORS H&V‐1 5/208/3 e85.5% 89.50% 2600 $ 34.26 4.4/$150 17.5/$600 H&V‐2 7.5/208/3 e85.0% 91.70% 2600 $ 111.41 1.8/$200 8.1/$900 Efficiency ratings at Full Load, per nameplate, if accessible e = estimated because nameplate not accessible or information not on nameplate Payback figures based on power consumption at 66% of full load H&V fan motor operating hrs assumed to be 8:00am‐4:00pm weekdays and 10 hrs on weekends ‐ per onsite personnel G-3: Generator Waste Heat Recovery: The village power generation facility is near this building. Waste heat recovered from the generators can be used to heat nearby buildings, essentially for free, once the capital costs are recovered. As a rough rule of thumb, 1/3 of the energy in a gallon of fuel oil is wasted as combustion losses up the generator’s stack, 1/3 is converted to electricity and 1/3 is wasted through the generator’s cooling radiators. This last 1/3 is recoverable by adding heat exchangers to the generator cooling system. It is recommended that an engineering study be undertaken to determine the amount, quality and cost of recovering and piping this generator waste heat to the subject building. It is estimated that in a village the size of Shishmaref, the generator waste heat could provide for one third to one half of the school’s heating needs. As a comparison, the waste heat from 3 generators in the smaller village of Atqasuk provides approximately 1,761 MBH, (supplying a portion of the heating needs of 5 nearby buildings). This amount of heat in Shishmaref could replace ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 39 of 48 the output of 2 of the 3 boilers during the winter months, and supply the school’s entire heat load during 3-4 summer months, saving an estimated 12,000-15,000 gallons, or $43,000-$54,000 per year at 2010 fuel oil prices. G-4: Variable Frequency Drive (VFD): If outfitted with a VFD with a programmable input device (PID) which responds to a process parameter such as duct pressure or temperature for an air handler or suction or discharge pressure on a pump, a motor has the capability to only produce enough power to meet the demand. There is tremendous savings potential resulting from the relationship between motor load required and resulting fluid or air flow (Affinity Laws). As an example, if 100% of air flow requires 100% of the motor’s horsepower, the Affinity laws state that 70% of air (or fluid) flow requires only 34% of the horsepower. Fan motors and pumps are sized for the worst case load scenario; consequently 90% of the time, they need only operate at 30%- 70% of their full load/full speed. VFD’s are recommended for larger, 3-phase motors that are under varying load and duty cycles, such as air handlers and circulation pump motors. The two fan motors in the H&V units are recommended to be retro-fitted with VFD’s. These motors were evaluated using software called, “Energy Predictor”, provided by Yaskawa, a manufacturer of VFD’s; excerpts from the detailed software reports are found in Appendix H. The 68% percent savings predicted using the Yaskawa software, was input into AkWarm-C as a reduction in power consumption for these motors. The motor savings are included in the EEM in Appendix B-7. It is important to note that these savings are over-stated because they are based solely on the reduction in electrical consumption resulting from the motor speed reduction. When a fan or compressor motor speed is reduced, GPM or CFM is also reduced, so the motor will have to operate at slightly higher load and speed to maintain building parameters, which will erode a small percentage of the electrical savings. Neither the Yaskawa software or the AkWarm-C software has the sophistication necessary to calculate this iterative condition. Table 5 Summarized cost and savings from addition of VFD’s to AHU fan motors and main circulation pump motors * Predicted by Yaskawa software outside of AkWarm-C, and therefore does not consider any other EEM’s (and is therefore overstated) See Appendix H for Yaskawa “Energy Predictor” reports. Estimated cost Annual Savings Payback Air Handlers: H&V‐1 and H&V‐2 (5 HP and 7.5 HP respectively) $7,960 $5,913 * 1.4 years ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 40 of 48 Appendix H – Specifications supporting EEM’s Lighting Controls Occupancy sensors sense the presence of people, turn the lights on at a pre- determined level, and then turn the lights off after a programmed time period of no occupancy. Line of sight, motion sensing occupancy sensors can be installed in existing duplex switch boxes, as well as on ceilings. Dual technology sensors are typically ceiling mounted in rooms, lavatories, corridors, vehicle bays and storage areas where obstacles may interfere with line-of-sight sensors. The second technology in these sensors activates lighting based on sound or changes in position, and work even when a person is fully obscured by an obstacle. Zoned occupancy controls are typically recommended for long corridors, large vehicle bays and large storage areas with multiple switches and lighting zones. Zoned controls are designed to activate and de-activate lighting by zone, by row, or even by fixture, based on the location of the occupant. Occupancy sensors can reduce power consumption by 25-60%. Paybacks on occupancy sensors range from 1 to 5 years, depending on the light fixture consumption and occupancy of the room. Lighting Management Systems (LMS) today have the capability to manage lighting based on a wide variety of parameters including building usage, daylight conditions and occupancy. They are retro-fittable, and can be stand alone or integrated into a building’s HVAC DDC control system. Additionally, they can be easily re-configured as a building’s usage or occupancy pattern changes. Sample LMS systems and a sample high bay occupancy sensor (which could be used for zone lighting control) follow. ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 41 of 48 Appendix H – Specifications supporting EEM’s Energy Saver T8-28 watt lamps ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 42 of 48 Appendix H – Specifications supporting EEM’s Energy Saver T8-28 watt lamps ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 43 of 48 Appendix H – Specifications supporting EEM’s Lighting Controls ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 44 of 48 Appendix H – Specifications supporting EEM’s Lighting Controls ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 45 of 48 Appendix H - Specifications supporting EEM’s VFD Reports ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 46 of 48 Appendix H - Specifications supporting EEM’s VFD Reports ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 47 of 48 Appendix H - Specifications supporting EEM’s VFD Reports ENERGY AUDITS OF ALASKA Page 48 of 48 Appendix I – Summary Benchmark Data $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Jan‐09Mar‐09May‐09Jul‐09Sep‐09Nov‐09Jan‐10Mar‐10May‐10Jul‐10Sep‐10Nov‐10Electric Cost ($)Electric Consumption (kWh)Date (Mon ‐Yr) Shishmaref Schools ‐Electric Consumption (kWh) vs. Electric Cost ($) Electric Consumption (kWh)Electric Cost ($) $0.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Jan‐09Mar‐09May‐09Jul‐09Sep‐09Nov‐09Jan‐10Mar‐10May‐10Jul‐10Sep‐10Nov‐10Oil Cost ($)Oil Consumption (Therms)Date (Mon ‐Yr) Shishmaref Schools ‐Oil Consumption (Therms) vs. Oil Cost ($) Oil Consumption (Therms)Oil Cost ($)